At the risk of being censored by the moderator here goes. I thought you were not supposed to attack a person on this site. A certain person has now called be a "liar" and that totally without justification. Just in case you missed it pseustes means "liar". No one on this site knows or has requested my academic credentials so to make such an attack is against the spirit of
Forum: Destructive Churches

Who ever argued that prayer required the function of a pastor-teacher? Again raising non issues, straw men arguments. Wall (p129 of book Thesis) as you quote says in part "In Ephesians 4:11, these two terms are linked very closely and probably refer to a combination gift held by certain people in the body of Christ." So here we have a dissenter from your view that it is definitely
Forum: Destructive Churches

Nice snow job. No where have you backed up your statement that Thieme or Thiemeites say that the "Holy Spirit is activated by any human being". Even the quote from “Super Grace Life”, for which you do not provide the reference (its page 63) does not support your statement. Again no Thiemeite I know has stated that. Your further statement “Don't let zeebrook's use of fl
Forum: Destructive Churches

No Thiemeite I have ever met has ever said that there is only one spiritual gift. Yet another straw man argument set up. No Thiemeite I have ever met relegated other spiritual gifts as non-essential or non-existent. Straw man argument yet again. With respect to being called dishonest, or in fact being called "dishonest again" this is surely the case of the kettle calling the pot b
Forum: Destructive Churches

The dishonest one is someone who says "the pastor teacher(its actually 2 gifts pastors amd or teachers).". Such an ex-cathedra proclamation is but a travesty of interpretation. No way can the Greek sustain a translation of "pastors or teachers". The grammatical debate on Ephesians 4:11 relates to the application of the Granville Sharp rule to plural nouns in an articular
Forum: Destructive Churches

the writer of Hebrews 13:17 did not use peitharcheo because to do so would introduce a redundancy. The writer astutely utilises peitho (present passive imperatitve) as a call to be convinced by "your leaders" (articular present middle participle), literally "the ones leading, guiding" you (plural of the personal pronoun). If the writer had used peitharcheo (used 4x in the NT
Forum: Destructive Churches

One needs to honestly translate the scriptures and not utilise a paraphrase simply because it helps your case. Hebrews 13:17 being a case in point. "Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." (Heb 13:17 NAS) The word translate
Forum: Destructive Churches

Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 is that if Christ was still dead and therefore in the grave then no one could have confidence in Him for salvation. No one is saved. If no one is saved then everyone including the believer is still dead in their sins, hence there is no forgiveness, no eternal life. Note verse 18, "Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
Forum: Destructive Churches

On the importance of checking out what a Pastor, or any teacher, teaches can be borne out by reviewing Wall's Thesis quoted numerous times in this discussion thread. There is a comment on this page that reads: "A significant problem involved in Thieme's teaching on evil is his exegetical approach to the Hebrew and Greek words for evil. For example, Thieme stretches the point to c
Forum: Destructive Churches

The use of Acts 17:10-11 as an example of a believer's not submitting unquestioningly to a pastor's authoritative teaching is in itself questionable. If one reads the text you find that the Bereans are Jews attending the synagogue. They are not Christians in a church fellowship. They are in fact Jewish unbelievers from Paul's perspective and in need of hearing the teachings abou
Forum: Destructive Churches

2 Timothy 2:15 is incorrectly noted in a post above as "Actually it's "correctly traversing", not "rightly dividing" " Biblos.com under the notes in all of their Greek translations quote "orthotomounta ὀñèïôïìïῦíôá straightly cutting". except the Tishendorf translation which has ὀñèïôïìÝù rather than ὀñèïôïìï&a
Forum: Destructive Churches

Walvoord (cited Wall p24-25) The false interpretation of the typology of Hebrews 9:7 lends itself to the theory of perpetual offering. According to this interpretation, which is embraced by Catholic and Protestant theologians alike, Christ took His blood into heaven when he entered it by ascension (Heb. 9:7 compared with Heb. 9:24). Based on the work of the high priest on the day of atonement, w
Forum: Destructive Churches

Again Truthtesty goes off on tangent. Where on earth was anyone discussing anticommunism tapes, US Constitutions etc Get back to the point. Your love of Gayford is disturbing, but let's run with it anyway. Your mentor says "Blood", in its sacrificial associations, refers particularly to something which took place after the victim's death, i.e. To the altar-transactio
Forum: Destructive Churches

Morris and Stibbs understand the "concept" of the blood. It's you truthtesty who does not. Your "Perpetual offering of the perfect Blood of Christ" is not a biblical concept. It is more Catholicism than anything else. The "blood of Christ" was offered once for all time, no such perpetual offering. Morris/Stibbs understand the Blood of Christ, correctly, t
Forum: Destructive Churches

Quote, Truthtesty: You act as if G-d in the fleshs' prayers are powerless in reality. And you would say that you know more than G-d in every moment, which is wrong. You don't know that there was not something that G-d "did" to the bread and the wine, in prayer. Unquote So you are a Catholic transubstantiationist. They, as you argue, the prayer changed the bread and wine in
Forum: Destructive Churches

[...] No surrender here. I quoted Spurgeon simply to note that he as a literalist no'ted that "When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. In the same way that you quote Joe Wall yet I disagree with a lot of his statements, likewise me and Spurgeon. Yes Spurgeon was a liter
Forum: Destructive Churches

Good grief Mr Moderator. How can you make such an outlandish declaration. "So zeebrook is here essentially to defend Thieme and his beliefs." Common courtesy would have you at least phrase it as a question, "are you zeebrook here to defend Thieme and his beliefs?" Simple answer, No. Long answer follows: So where have I defended Thieme and his beliefs? We have entered a
Forum: Destructive Churches

Good try Truthtesty. Brand me as espousing a Thieme doctrine, maybe that will deflect people for a while. No zeebrook is stating the fact of research by at least two prominent theologians and linguists that the phrase "the blood of Christ" is an expression denoting the death of Christ. You argue on Matthew 26:26-28 even you take as being metaphorical. When Jesus said "This
Forum: Destructive Churches

Well Truthtesty you want to have your cake and it too. If you are going to argue based on Matthew 26:26-28 then argue what the text says and not your substitutions. Jesus says “This IS my body”. He did not say as you then say “although bread is substitute for the body for the meal” (your words). So argue the text at it stands. Either Jesus is using “this is my body”, “this is my blood” as
Forum: Destructive Churches

Just got back, away for a while. Seems that everyone else is confused about the phrase “the blood of Christ” except Truthtesty (in his own opinion). Truthtesty (post of 1 December) states of Stibbs and Morris that “neither states that "blood represents death only in every case"". I would like to know who said they did? The only relevant comment in the context of this debate
Forum: Destructive Churches

Thieme's Testimony I only remember Thieme once speaking of his own salvation experience, and that was a long time ago. There was some opposition from his father but do not remember much of the rest of the details. What I do remember is that he did not like people giving a testimony of their salvation when it seemed to revolve around how bad they were and how lucky God was to save them.
Forum: Destructive Churches

Truthtesty is making a common mistake of assuming every reference in a lexicon is applicable to every text. Yes Arndt and Gingrich do list a number of meanings to the term haima but it is always the context that determines the meaning of word at that point. Thus Ardnt and Gingrich are saying that when you see the mention of blood with reference to Jesus it is “blood and life as an expiatory sac
Forum: Destructive Churches

Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Third edition 1965) says of Hebrews 12:24 “There can be no doubt that the blood of Abel is a metaphorical way of referring to the death of that patriarch, and it is unnatural accordingly to interpret the blood of Jesus as signifying anything other than His death.” (page 125) This is what J. Behm's conclusion was which Morris endorsed (p
Forum: Destructive Churches

[...] And what does Morris say about the Blood of Christ? Many things, but one of them specifically is Unquote Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross third edition of 1965 on page 126 says by way of conclusion: Quote Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments the blood signifies essentially the death. It is freely admitted that there are some
Forum: Destructive Churches

Quote: Zeebrook: Dr Wall stated emphatically that R.B. Thieme Jr "is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox. Truthtesty: He did not "emphatically" state that. That is your emphasis. Unquote Let's examine that. Dr Wall says of Thieme in this thesis (http://www.texaswalls.org/immys/pdfs/thieme_by_joe_wall.pdf) that he: Quote still within the limits
Forum: Destructive Churches

[...] I never met Sodini. Also I had never heard of Tetelstai church before I joined this forum. So on either account I know nothing about them. I did meet R.B. Thieme Jr, spoken to him on a few occasions, and have attended Berachah Church during Thieme's ministry. In my dealings with Thieme he was courteous, patient, answered my questions, directed me to further research and I would
Forum: Destructive Churches

[...] In a previous post I did not claim to be a teacher, only that I was proofreading and editing a ThM student paper. The student attends a prestigious institution and asked if I would undertake this role as he respects my language skills. [...] Dr. Wall said: "Without these clarifications the teaching of confession and forgiveness can even result in a rationalization of the con
Forum: Destructive Churches

Truthtesty, [...] Dr Wall stated emphatically that R.B. Thieme Jr "is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox Christianity". He is saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord. He is with the Lord now rejocing in his presence and all your vitriol cannot change that fact and that Dr Wall says (paraphrase) Thieme is a believer in Jesus Christ, a Christian brother
Forum: Destructive Churches

mvan6766 Short answer to your question about Ham and Noah: yes sexual connotations, no cursing was not skin colour. Some people think that the cursing was skin colour but the text does not say so. Cursing appears to be more that Canaan will be reduced in status. The long answer that explains the passage: Noah's son Ham is said in Genesis 9:22 to have seen the nakedness of his fat
Forum: Destructive Churches

Truthtesty, Your mentor Dr Wall states in his thesis that you so prolificly comment about on page 36 of the pdf form states of Thieme "he is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox Christianity". You comment that i would "have everyone believe that Thieme was a "Christian brother"". Yes I believe Thieme is a Christian brother exactly as Dr Wall
Forum: Destructive Churches